On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:56:26 +0100, gwicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcel Kilgus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [ql-users] What printers do people use with their QL??
My solution regarding postscript would also very much solve the problem for Qxx. SGC is probably too slow or doesn't have enough memory to run Ghostscript.
To add a little controversy to this discussion, because we must not shy away
from it, should we start thinking the unthinkable and plan for QL native
hardware obsolescence? Colour drivers already push the SGC to the limit and
there would appear to be no long term native hardware solution for the
printer problem.
Realistically there are only two ways for the QL to develop. One is the QPC
way and the other the Q60 way. I realise this is hard on the people who have
a heavy investment in native hardware, but unless a new super SGC becomes a
real possibility it is going to become harder and harder for native hardware
to keep up with new developments.
As I said that is NOT necessary. Cardbus based USB and Firewire hosts already exist and after a little research I can assure you that they would work on the Qx0.
Obsolence is in the eye of the be(er)holder (just kidding on the spelling here ;-)
As it stands now, it's not difficult -or unimaginable- even to implement a fully working QL in the size of a SIMM (the uC SIMM to be exact) and that little thing has everything AND the kitchen sink on it. (That includes IDE/LCD Controller/USB/Ethernet etc.). You see it's a matter of investment in time (and not necessarily money as for example with the uC Simm you need not to do ANY hardware development) and only that.
As I argued many times before, emulation is a necessary "evil" for people that prefer to remain simple users or others that view the QL as a nice distraction in their PC computing or people that just do not have enough space in their house! That comment of course is not meant to downplay the achievements of the emulator authors or their immense contribution to systems' software in the past years (See for example Marcel's excellent multi-faceted work). It's a personal opinion and should be taken at face value.
I mention however this to show that QL obsolence is only there because the users and developers stop caring (right or wrong I am not the one to judge) or couldn't afford to invest time and money in the situation or because they had other better things to do. Whatever the reason however, this is reversable and that's the simple fact.
Using a QL for me is a lifestyle choice if you will... the reason why I will chose a VW over a Dodge even if they have exactly the same characteristics or use Free Software instead of commercial one.
In the final analysis, it's the users' choice and it has to be respected in a way....
Phoebus
--
Visit the QL-FAQ at: <http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/faq/> (Still uploading stuff!)
Visit the uQLX-win32 homepage at: <http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/uqlx.html>
Visit the uQLX-mac home page at:<http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/uqlxmac.html>
